Summarized below are six different types of devices used for supporting, bracing and splinting ankles. A brief critique on each type is also provided in an attempt to bring to light their limitations. Orthotic type devices with rigid and semi-rigid moulded heel cups are not discussed here since they require specialized preparation, are not off the shelf products, and require--customized fitting. This type is also the most restrictive of athletic performance.
Type-1: All purpose elastic or neoprene wraps (long strips with hook and loop-type closure options)
This type is claimed to be a universal device which is used for applying compression to the effected area (the ankle in this case) by wrapping tightly. In the case of the neoprene it also provides thermal support. This type offers very little structural support and is both difficult and time consuming to apply. In cases of self application it is especially difficult if one suffers from injury pain and/or due to a lack of agility has limited reach. Tight wrapping may effect circulation. Any firmness in fit achieved is reduced significantly soon after use. It can become bulky (especially the neoprene straps) and there is no adjustment of fit possible once applied. They can become complicated since the tail end must come to rest at a certain point to complete closure (typically by hook and loop-type fasteners).
Type-2: Figure-eight elastic sock with open toe and heel.
This type is also for applying compression. They are simpler, less bulky and much easier and less time consuming to put on than Type-1. Once again it offers token structural support. The device is fixed for a given size and allows no provision to adjust or control the final fit. In cases where the user is experiencing pain in the region it is very difficult to put on and to take off. There are not enough device sizes to effectively fit the wide range of ankle/foot size variations. The device assumes that the foot is symmetric in geometry without complicated topography. This leads to uneven distribution of applied compressive pressure due to uneven stretching of the elastic.
Type-3: Neoprene or neoprene like material sock types with a variety of options. Some with open toes and/or heels, some with a zipper or hook and loop-type fasteners on the front or the side for easier access.
These are simple devices designed mainly to provide thermal support and some compression. They are softer and more comfortable than plain elastic, offer less compression and little structural support. With additional features they can become bulky. The devices are usually symmetrically prepared (assuming the lateral foot topography is identical to the interior) making them applicable to either the left or the right foot. Since this is not a realistic assumption an uneven distribution of compressive pressure is established. As in the previous case, most of these devices have no control features for achieving a desired final fit once applied. There are not enough device sizes to effectively fit the wide range of ankle/foot size variations. They are very difficult to put on and take off if the wearer suffers pain in the region (this includes the type with closures on the front or sides).
Type-4: Various Combinations of Types 2 and 3
This type of device provides a neoprene sock base onto which an elastic system is overlapped. It proposes a bulkier solution to the previous but with better control of final fit. The restraint provided is still very little and only compressive pressure onto the ankle region may be adjusted for. These devices suffer from identical limitations outlined in Types 2 and 3 above.
Type-5: Non stretch canvas or nylon or synthetic leather based braces with lace-up hook and loop-type fasteners and buckle combination frontal closure options and with thin plastic plate or flexible metal inserts.
These are currently claimed to be the most support providing splints in the market. Their potential of preventing injury and providing after injury support seems to be grossly overrated when the difficulties presented and their limitations imposed upon general performance are investigated.
They offer only passive restraint. They are heavy, bulky, very cumbersome and take a long time to put on. They require a fair degree of forcefulness to apply and if already injured and suffering pain then it is close to impossible to apply. Since they are made from non stretch materials, the splints are incapable of forming perfectly onto the lower leg, ankle and foot topography all at once. This produces uneven compression on the applied region. The plastic inserts are plate-like and incapable of perfectly forming to the region. The flexible metal inserts do little to provide stability. Both insert types and other typical rigid fixtures such as buckles and lace eyelets cause discomfort soon after application. In most cases, the base component onto which all other attachments are sewn on to are symmetrically cut and composed, once again wrongly assuming a symmetric foot topography. This fact further limits the effectiveness of the final fit. They appear not to facilitate any traction between the inner shoe and the outer splint surfaces since all outer surfaces are both shiny and slippery. They are complicated in design requiring many components and a wide range of specialised sewing processes to manufacture. They are expensive and not user friendly. All final fit adjustments must be made outside the shoe. In order to alter the fit, one must begin the lacing or hook and loop-type strapping process all over again. General performance is compromised for those using the splints as an injury prevention measure due to mainly the rigid nature of the designs and the inherent restrictions that they impose. The designs possess no reactive features that tend to recover the foot to the healing position when it experiences forced adverse movement such as inversion. Furthermore, even though the splints are tightly laced up or hook and loop-type strapping is applied tightly, there still appears to be some freedom of movement within the splint. There is only token traction between the outer ankle/foot and the inner splint surfaces to stop local movement from taking place. General professional feedback perceives this type to be ineffective and totally awkward.
Type-6: Traditional taping by skilled trainers, sports conditioners and physiotherapists.
Perceived generally by athletes to be the most effective for protection and prevention purposes. There is less slippage experienced. It takes extremely long to apply. One must be a trained professional to apply it correctly. It cannot be self applied effectively due to the reach factor. There needs to be good communication between the applier and the user for continuous adjustment during application. Further corrective adjustments cannot be made once application is completed. New strapping tapes must be used every time. Even though individual tapes are inexpensive, when one considers accumulated costs over time of the tapes and the time of a paid trainer who applies it, then the costs become very significant very quickly. Taping provides only passive restraint. The effect of such restraint is reduced dramatically after only a short period of exercise leading to increased play and possibly becoming slippery inside the shoe.
The present invention seeks to overcome or least ameliorate the problems and disadvantages of the prior art outlined above.